Apple now owns the patent for "Touchscreens" on devices like cell phones and tablets [Archive]

TexasBulldog

06-22-2011, 8:37pm

Not liking this at all.

Just heard about this and find it hard to believe they could stop other competitors from using this technology.

This sounds like a monopoly and i just find it hard that they could pull this off. Another reason to hate Apple's BS

Apple Gets Touchscreen Patent, Makes Things Potentially Awkward for Rivals | PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/230892/apple_gets_touchscreen_patent_makes_things_potentially_awkward_for_rivals.html)

More than three years after its original filing, Apple has finally been granted an iPhone patent that could potentially see the touchscreen smartphone market become much more monopolized.

With US patent number 7966578, Apple has been awarded control over "[a] computer-implemented method, for use in conjunction with a portable multifunction device with a touch screen display, [that] comprises displaying a portion of page content, including a frame displaying a portion of frame content and also including other content of the page, on the touch screen display". Basically, the patent gives Apple full ownership of "capacitive multitouch interface"--the touchscreen interface commonly used by smartphone manufacturers--which is the way you would navigate yourself around a touchscreen while using other multitouch gestures (for instance, scrolling around a webpage with a finger, while also being able to use a two-finger touch on an embedded frame on the page).

Photo: Patent 7966578 In fact, the patent is so broad, it could even affect makers of tablets and music players with particular touchscreens.

According to one source speaking to PC Mag, Apple could use this to "bully" other companies such as HTC, Samsung, Motorola and Nokia by using yet more lawsuits to stamp out competition. What's more, one patent expert believes that the highly-detailed file could make it quite hard to create a good competitor to the iPhone, therefore stifling innovation.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean the end of a rich and varied touchscreen cellphone market, as the above statement is more worst case scenario. It all depends how Apple uses this patent against its competitors. Should Apple decide to take a company to the courts over the patent infringement, it would have to prove that the multitouch interface was a direct copy of its own. It's pretty doubtful big companies such as HTC would go and fully copy the iPhone's touchscreen, characteristic-for-characteristic.

More likely, though, Apple and other companies will deal with the new patent out-of-court by essentially licensing the technology--every company that wants to use a setup like the iPhone and iPad would pay Apple a cash sum to lease the rights.

There is also a chance that, if Apple does prefer to be particularly hostile and take various companies on over infringements rather than offer licenses, the courts could rule that in the public interest the patent be revoked. If that was a possibility, it makes one wonder if there was any point in granting the patent after all this time anyway.

carlton_fritz

06-22-2011, 8:39pm

I have enough hate for Apple to not need another reason. I don't even use QT.

Will

06-22-2011, 8:44pm

If this forces other companies into inflating their prices like apple OR forces me to buy a piece of shit apple product, I will seriously add them to my anthrax letter list.

73sbVert

06-22-2011, 8:45pm

I have enough hate for Apple to not need another reason. I don't even use QT.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

Werd.

MEANZ06

06-22-2011, 8:48pm

I love my IPhone... :D

Uncle Pervey

06-22-2011, 8:49pm

I have enough hate for Apple to not need another reason. I don't even use QT.

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

Werd.

Fvckin' Jobs deserves to be ass boinked with something the size of Wozniak's head! :yesnod:

SnikPlosskin

06-22-2011, 9:18pm

Seems like capitalism to me. Remember, apple invented it. Who would blame them to get a patent? Why WOULDN'T they? If you don't like it, blame the patent office.

Kerrmudgeon

06-22-2011, 9:22pm

Others will just have to pay a licensing fee to Apple, time to buy stock now!

AU Eagle

06-22-2011, 9:27pm

Always been anti-Apple...then I got an iPhone and I love it.

Like 'em or not, they have amassed quite a loyal customer base.

Will

06-22-2011, 9:39pm

Seems like capitalism to me. Remember, apple invented it. Who would blame them to get a patent? Why WOULDN'T they? If you don't like it, blame the patent office.

Patenting touch screen is like patenting automobile or toothbrush or more aptly here keyboard.

It's absurd. Companies will either easily be able to get around their patent with the slight differences in technology, or if the patent is actually broad enough to literally allow apple to hold hostage any and all touchscreens, it's a joke and should be void.

SnikPlosskin

06-22-2011, 9:41pm

themonk

06-22-2011, 10:11pm

I'm right in the middle of a legal battle myself, I'm trying to buy the rights to the numbers 0-9, looks like I'm going to win. :hurray:

Ol Timer

06-22-2011, 10:14pm

I'm right in the middle of a legal battle myself, I'm trying to buy the rights to the numbers 0-9, looks like I'm going to win. :hurray:

You can't. I already own nothing.

MattW

06-22-2011, 10:15pm

Apparently the patent office doesn't agree.

Thrakk, the US Patent Office went off the deep end several years ago. The topic of patent reform is near and dear to the hearts of many in the business world.

They've been granting patents lately, for ideas for new products and devices. Just ideas... that no one actually has any idea how to build or manufacture yet.

They're patenting so they can claim, when someone with greater intelligence than they possess, figures out how to make the product, they have the patent on the idea/concept, so pay up.

That's just not right...

Nemesis

06-23-2011, 1:27am

Seems like capitalism to me. Remember, apple invented it. Who would blame them to get a patent? Why WOULDN'T they? If you don't like it, blame the patent office.

It's a little late for that.

SnikPlosskin

06-23-2011, 8:38am

Thrakk, the US Patent Office went off the deep end several years ago. The topic of patent reform is near and dear to the hearts of many in the business world.

They've been granting patents lately, for ideas for new products and devices. Just ideas... that no one actually has any idea how to build or manufacture yet.

They're patenting so they can claim, when someone with greater intelligence than they possess, figures out how to make the product, they have the patent on the idea/concept, so pay up.

That's just not right...

I agree. But seeing Apple as a bad guy in this isn't fair. If people don't like the direction the patent office is going in, then they need to work the system to change it. It's similar to demonizing GE because they worked the tax code to their favor. Or farmers because they accept subsidies.

Wrong targets. Protecting IP is a smart strategy. The other side if the coin is when a company spends millions of dollars and years refining and developing some technology and then a rival rips it off.

Strong patent protection is critical to innovation. Without it, there would be no incentive to innovate and nobody would have a touch interface.

BuckyThreadkiller

06-23-2011, 9:04am

Patenting touch screen is like patenting automobile or toothbrush or more aptly here keyboard.

It's absurd. Companies will either easily be able to get around their patent with the slight differences in technology, or if the patent is actually broad enough to literally allow apple to hold hostage any and all touchscreens, it's a joke and should be void.

So in reality you're a closet socialist and only for free enterprise when its convenient?

Apple didn't invent the touch screen - they've been around forever. But they did invent a means to use it on a small portable device that uses so little battery power as to be practical.

If they don't patent that and use it to make money its a disservice to every shareholder in the company.

G8rDMD

06-23-2011, 9:08am

I'm right in the middle of a legal battle myself, I'm trying to buy the rights to the numbers 0-9, looks like I'm going to win. :hurray:

Then my Barn stall number is now XXIX...no royalties for you :slap:

G8rDMD

06-23-2011, 9:11am

So in reality you're a closet socialist and only for free enterprise when its convenient?

Apple didn't invent the touch screen - they've been around forever. But they did invent a means to use it on a small portable device that uses so little battery power as to be practical.

If they don't patent that and use it to make money its a disservice to every shareholder in the company.

:iagree: It's a technology that they developed for a purpose. Charles Goodyear received a patent for his process of vulcanizing rubber. It didn't stop other tire companies from developing their products. But it sure as hell cemented Goodyear in the business. It's the same exact thing.

C5SilverBullet

06-23-2011, 9:13am

They hold a patent on a very specific type of touchscreen, I don't see a problem with it. They are protecting their development, if others want to use a touchscreen, design your own.

Gozar

06-23-2011, 12:42pm

I can't believe the anti-Apple sentiment being displayed here over the basics of capitalism. Your beloved PCs and other devices all have thousands of patents behind them.

G8rDMD

06-23-2011, 12:53pm

I can't believe the anti-Apple sentiment being displayed here over the basics of capitalism. Your beloved PCs and other devices all have thousands of patents behind them.

I think it's just the age-old blind hatred of Apple. If MS patented the same screen, people would be lauding it as a step toward killing Apple :rofl: Capitalism is the game they play and they play it damn well. Beats Socialism, that's for sure :dance:

Poog

06-23-2011, 12:58pm

Uncle Pervey

06-23-2011, 12:59pm

I can't believe the anti-Apple sentiment being displayed here over the basics of capitalism. Your beloved PCs and other devices all have thousands of patents behind them.

Most people I know who hate Apple, hate them because Jobs is a douche and he runs his company like a douche. Not to say Gates and Balmer are any better. I hate Jobs, I have a lot of respect for Wozniak and Apple sells good products they are just over priced for the value received. The iPhone is a phenomena that will not stay near the top much longer becuase of Apple's policies. I know serveral folks who have dumped the iPhone 4 for a Droid and are much happier.
BTW, Apple does provide a technological service to society, their products are usually good enough that it forces the rest of the techno base to stretch to catch up.
As for the capacitive touch interface, it has been around a long, long time before Apple ever existed. Back in the very early 70's I owned a Curtis Mathis TV that had capacitive touch tuning pads (changed channels by touching the surface of the button.) The technology is used in a multitude of devices and Apple can in theory start sueing everyone in sight if they have truly been given a patent on the touch interface. Aren't lawyers wonderful! They give companies a whole other method of generating income by sueing other companies. :rofl:

mrvette

06-23-2011, 1:24pm

Most people I know who hate Apple, hate them because Jobs is a douche and he runs his company like a douche. Not to say Gates and Balmer are any better. I hate Jobs, I have a lot of respect for Wozniak and Apple sells good products they are just over priced for the value received. The iPhone is a phenomena that will not stay near the top much longer becuase of Apple's policies. I know serveral folks who have dumped the iPhone 4 for a Droid and are much happier.
BTW, Apple does provide a technological service to society, their products are usually good enough that it forces the rest of the techno base to stretch to catch up.
As for the capacitive touch interface, it has been around a long, long time before Apple ever existed. Back in the very early 70's I owned a Curtis Mathis TV that had capacitive touch tuning pads (changed channels by touching the surface of the button.) The technology is used in a multitude of devices and Apple can in theory start sueing everyone in sight if they have truly been given a patent on the touch interface. Aren't lawyers wonderful! They give companies a whole other method of generating income by sueing other companies. :rofl:

Here I thought Curtis Mathis was outta business decades ago....

between them and GE and Westinghouse, they are the reasons the TV industry died in this country....no more electronic production houses of any capacity..just DOD suppliers....highly dangerous for national security....

:sadangel::leaving:

Gozar

06-23-2011, 1:51pm

As for the capacitive touch interface, it has been around a long, long time before Apple ever existed. Back in the very early 70's I owned a Curtis Mathis TV that had capacitive touch tuning pads (changed channels by touching the surface of the button.) The technology is used in a multitude of devices and Apple can in theory start sueing everyone in sight if they have truly been given a patent on the touch interface. Aren't lawyers wonderful! They give companies a whole other method of generating income by sueing other companies. :rofl:

THIS

Apple didn't invent the touch screen - they've been around forever. But they did invent a means to use it on a small portable device that uses so little battery power as to be practical.

If they don't patent that and use it to make money its a disservice to every shareholder in the company.

I didn't feel the need to repeat it my original post.

Uncle Pervey

06-23-2011, 2:15pm

Here I thought Curtis Mathis was outta business decades ago....

:sadangel::leaving:

Gene by my count the early 70's was 4 decades ago. :D I think CM went under in the late 80's or early 90's. :yesnod:

BuckyThreadkiller

06-23-2011, 2:22pm

Gene by my count the early 70's was 4 decades ago. :D I think CM went under in the late 80's or early 90's. :yesnod:

IIRC, Mr. Mathes was killed in a plane crash and the company was liquidated soon after.

prospero63

06-23-2011, 3:09pm

But they did invent a means to use it on a small portable device that uses so little battery power as to be practical.

The lawyers will debate that in the courts for years to come IMO.

Gozar

06-23-2011, 4:33pm

The lawyers will debate that in the courts for years to come IMO.

:iagree:

TexasBulldog

06-23-2011, 4:36pm

as for this being apple hate, far from it.

If Ericson, Samsung, blah blah blah.... did the same thing at the point of competition in today's touch screen, small device market i would of called BS too.

Seems like it was done awfully late to be realistic and they are only doing it now since they can't keep up with competition.

Besides, i thought the multi touch screen was invented by Jeff Han in Feb 2006 when he introduced it at "TED". Apples first touch screen didn't appear until september 2007.

JOe

YouTube - ‪Multi-touch interface (from Adobe TED)‬&rlm;

themonk

06-23-2011, 5:12pm

Here, for you people's amusement.

1983

HP-150 Touchscreen
HP allows users to activate features on their PCs simply by touching the screen when it introduces its first touchscreen personal computer, the HP-150.

Bill Hewlett is awarded the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest scientific honor,"For his pioneering accomplishments in the creation and manufacturing of electronics and semi-conductor devices and electronic test instruments." It is presented to him by President Reagan at a White House ceremony on February 27, 1985.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/timeline/images/1983.jpg

HP History : 1980s (http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/timeline/hist_80s.html)

Chris Fowler

06-23-2011, 6:11pm

Of course...the fact that Apple wasn't actually granted a "patent on touchscreen devices like cell phones and tablets" was missed in this thread...

Apple granted patent on webpage scrolling behaviors, media granted patent on crazy | This is my next... (http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/22/apple-granted-patent-webpage-scrolling-behaviors-media-crazy/)

1. You need a “portable multifunction device with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display.” Check!

2. That device needs to display “a portion of a web page in a stationary application window,” and that portion has to include both the regular page content and a “frame displaying a portion of frame content.” That’s something like a Google Maps embed — it’s a frame within a webpage that displays other content.

3. The device has to “detect a translation gesture by a single finger,” and in response somehow translate both the main content and the frame content. That means when you scroll with a single finger, everything has to move.

4. Lastly, the device has to be able to detect “a translation gesture by two fingers” and in response translate only the frame content without translating the main content. That’s exactly what happens on the iPhone today — you can pinch-to-zoom on a map embed without zooming a main web page. It’s easier to show this in a video, actually:

YouTube - ‪Apple Patent 7,966,578‬&rlm;

theanswriz42

06-23-2011, 6:59pm

Chris Fowler

06-23-2011, 7:10pm

Based on that video, they've patented something nearly every mobile device is already capable of. Asinine.
Any idea when the patent was applied for?

Were other devices capable of doing it at that time?

Do other devices do it in the exact same way?

theanswriz42

06-23-2011, 7:14pm

Any idea when the patent was applied for?

Were other devices capable of doing it at that time?

Do other devices do it in the exact same way?
2007

Nope, neither were theirs.

Yes, based on the video.

Chris Fowler

06-23-2011, 7:20pm

2007

Nope, neither were theirs.

Yes, based on the video.
So they applied for a patent based on a technology/usage they were working on, by the time they received the patent others had started using the same implementation, likely copying them, and you call it asinine?

That's pretty much the exact pattern for all patents...

theanswriz42

06-23-2011, 7:23pm

So they applied for a patent based on a technology/usage they were working on, by the time they received the patent others had started using the same implementation, likely copying them, and you call it asinine?

That's pretty much the exact pattern for all patents...
Who said they were working on it in 2007? At that point I'd be willing to bet it was just a concept.

MattW

06-23-2011, 11:46pm

Who said they were working on it in 2007? At that point I'd be willing to bet it was just a concept.

That's pretty much what I was discussing with Thrakk. The USPatO has been allowing companies and entities to patent concepts, even though they do not yet have a way to implement the concept.

So... ideas are patent-able; if you can come up with a concept and figure out how to describe the concept in acceptable patent-ese, you can stake your claim to the idea, even though you don't possess the skill or technical capability to produce the idea/effect in the real world yet.

This could slow innovation.

Say you figure out how to do something you think no one has ever done before. You're all fired up. Then you find out someone has already patented the conceptualization of your idea even though they can't pull it off themselves.

What do you do?

You go to the patent holder and tell them you can show them how to implement their concept, for a certain consideration.

Or.

You decide not to pursue the concept any further, because the existing patent means you have to negotiate with the patent owner in order to produce something which, in your view, should be 100% yours.

lander

06-24-2011, 6:05am

Lots of people that don't grasp the concept of patents in this thread. :(

Chris Fowler

06-24-2011, 7:51am

That's pretty much what I was discussing with Thrakk. The USPatO has been allowing companies and entities to patent concepts, even though they do not yet have a way to implement the concept.

So... ideas are patent-able; if you can come up with a concept and figure out how to describe the concept in acceptable patent-ese, you can stake your claim to the idea, even though you don't possess the skill or technical capability to produce the idea/effect in the real world yet.

This could slow innovation.

Say you figure out how to do something you think no one has ever done before. You're all fired up. Then you find out someone has already patented the conceptualization of your idea even though they can't pull it off themselves.

What do you do?

You go to the patent holder and tell them you can show them how to implement their concept, for a certain consideration.

Or.

You decide not to pursue the concept any further, because the existing patent means you have to negotiate with the patent owner in order to produce something which, in your view, should be 100% yours.
While I can't disagree with what you said, assuming that's true in this case is, possibly, a little off.

They applied for this patent in 2007...the same year the iPhone came out.

It seems likely to me that, whether or not they had released the functionality, there is a good chance they were at least working on it, as they had the device it works on already.

SnikPlosskin

06-24-2011, 9:04am

That's pretty much what I was discussing with Thrakk. The USPatO has been allowing companies and entities to patent concepts, even though they do not yet have a way to implement the concept.

So... ideas are patent-able; if you can come up with a concept and figure out how to describe the concept in acceptable patent-ese, you can stake your claim to the idea, even though you don't possess the skill or technical capability to produce the idea/effect in the real world yet.

This could slow innovation.

Say you figure out how to do something you think no one has ever done before. You're all fired up. Then you find out someone has already patented the conceptualization of your idea even though they can't pull it off themselves.

What do you do?

You go to the patent holder and tell them you can show them how to implement their concept, for a certain consideration.

Or.

You decide not to pursue the concept any further, because the existing patent means you have to negotiate with the patent owner in order to produce something which, in your view, should be 100% yours.

I thought that's the way it's always worked. Nobody would patent something after they started manufacturing it. That would be too late. It's always been the idea that gets patented. :confused5:

lander

06-24-2011, 9:18am

I thought that's the way it's always worked. Nobody would patent something after they started manufacturing it. That would be too late. It's always been the idea that gets patented. :confused5:

:hurray: Winner! :hurray: You don't waste time creating something that's already patented!

Which is fine, until you have these pathetic scum patent houses which do nothing but buy up/get patents and wait for someone to create the object(s) which MIGHT violate said patent, then sue.

IMHO, those type of companies should be illegal. :yesnod:

:iagree: These are the companies that are the scourge of developing new products.

Thud

06-24-2011, 9:28am

Patenting touch screen is like patenting automobile or toothbrush or more aptly here keyboard.

In 2007 when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he actually said "and boy, have we patented it!"
Now the patent office has finally awarded that patent.

Apple didn't actually invent multi-touch but the patent is for using multi-touch to interact with a UI on a mobile device.

MattW

06-24-2011, 11:53am

I thought that's the way it's always worked. Nobody would patent something after they started manufacturing it. That would be too late. It's always been the idea that gets patented. :confused:

(I am off tangent now; I'm not arguing this in relation to Apple's patent.)

You can't - or shouldn't - be able to patent a concept for which you have no strategy to realize.

I can have a blue million ideas. In fact, I do. But I have no way to realize them. Should I nevertheless patent them, because at some future date, someone - probably not me - will develop a way to realize the idea?

"Patent proposal: A device using directed quantum radiation transmitted in a narrow focused beam, which, when applied directly to a cloth, fabric, textile or organic film layer covering human flesh, will cause the cloth to disintegrate without harming the underlying flesh..."

So now I have a patent on the concept of a "Nude Ray"... so if anyone ever actually figures out how to *make* a nude ray, they can't manufacture it without compensating me for my "original" idea.

Thus.

lander

06-24-2011, 12:03pm

(I am off tangent now; I'm not arguing this in relation to Apple's patent.)

You can't - or shouldn't - be able to patent a concept for which you have no strategy to realize.

I can have a blue million ideas. In fact, I do. But I have no way to realize them. Should I nevertheless patent them, because at some future date, someone - probably not me - will develop a way to realize the idea?

"Patent proposal: A device using directed quantum radiation transmitted in a narrow focused beam, which, when applied directly to a cloth, fabric, textile or organic film layer covering human flesh, will cause the cloth to disintegrate without harming the underlying flesh..."

So now I have a patent on the concept of a "Nude Ray"... so if anyone ever actually figures out how to *make* a nude ray, they can't manufacture it without compensating me for my "original" idea.

Thus.

Well, patents are only good for 20 years...so there's that.

But beyond that, yes, if you have a blue million ideas, then file patents for them. So what if you can't bring them to market? Maybe someone else can, and comes along and does. It was your idea first, and you hold the patent on it, so why shouldn't you then be compensated for your idea?

Again...there are some here that aren't grasping the whole patenting concept.

ChasC5

06-24-2011, 12:09pm

I love my IPhone... :D

And iPad :D

ChasC5

06-24-2011, 12:09pm

So technically he lied.

They didn't patent it, at the time.

It was "Patent pending". :D

Hell ... I have bunch of those. :D

prospero63

06-24-2011, 12:12pm

Well, patents are only good for 20 years...so there's that.

But beyond that, yes, if you have a blue million ideas, then file patents for them. So what if you can't bring them to market? Maybe someone else can, and comes along and does. It was your idea first, and you hold the patent on it, so why shouldn't you then be compensated for your idea?

Again...there are some here that aren't grasping the whole patenting concept.

Correct. It's what every tech company does. Essentially they try to poison the well by either a) filing patents on pretty much any and everything or b) publishing it so that it can't be patented by others.

In the latter case, that tends to get used to defeat the patent claim when the litigation starts. Company A says "we patented this" and company B says "yeah, but we published this before the patent".

Hell, I've got a patent on some network monitoring mechanisms that were by and large to protect a process we were using... it took something like 7 years for it to get awarded, and that was after having to defend it against an initial rejection. It actually took so long, I'm not sure how relevant it would actually be today in most cases...

prospero63

06-24-2011, 12:26pm

7 years. That's ancient in tech years.

Kinda sucks the process isn't just a wee bit faster in those cases.

Yup. I guess it was actually 6 as I look at the plaque hanging on the wall. Here it is (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7940691.PN.&OS=PN/7940691&RS=PN/7940691) if you want to be bored out of your skull...

BuckyThreadkiller

06-24-2011, 1:53pm

(I am off tangent now; I'm not arguing this in relation to Apple's patent.)

You can't - or shouldn't - be able to patent a concept for which you have no strategy to realize.

I can have a blue million ideas. In fact, I do. But I have no way to realize them. Should I nevertheless patent them, because at some future date, someone - probably not me - will develop a way to realize the idea?

"Patent proposal: A device using directed quantum radiation transmitted in a narrow focused beam, which, when applied directly to a cloth, fabric, textile or organic film layer covering human flesh, will cause the cloth to disintegrate without harming the underlying flesh..."

So now I have a patent on the concept of a "Nude Ray"... so if anyone ever actually figures out how to *make* a nude ray, they can't manufacture it without compensating me for my "original" idea.

Thus.

Sure go for it -- but the nice thing about the patent application and discovery process is that it weeds out alot of people who just have "a great idea" but don't necessarily think its great enough to hire a lawyer, get the app submitted deal with the BS involved...

If you don't move to actively commercialize it then you've most likely just wasted your time and money.

Chris Fowler

06-24-2011, 2:16pm

If you don't move to actively commercialize it then you've most likely just wasted your time and money.

Or if you don't protect it.

I've got a patent with my last company that we received and Amazon violates.

But the company was too small and didn't just want to be bought by Amazon (this was in the days of them being hopeful of being purchased) that they just let it slide.

Now it's worthless...but I do have a mousepad and a cool plaque. :D

SnikPlosskin

06-24-2011, 6:06pm